As a follow up to my recent post on inequality I wanted to write some more inspired by my friend Scott’s comment.

Therefore I will to discuss hope, anger, inequality, democracy <or leadership> and people.

I also fear what extreme inequality will do to America’s democracy. However I believe hope is not so fragile it can become … well … nothing <or fear or desperation>.

Even with large systemic issues I believe, while people will get angry <because it feels like someone is fucking with our hope – as I wrote in October 2013>, people don’t quit on something like hope. And while in anger, or despair, people may find demagogues appealing in parts & pieces in the end we people are very very consistent … give me solutions with real benefits and offer me hope for not what you believe is ‘better’ but what I know is ‘better’ <which is more often than not defined by good for all rather than good for a selected group>.

But Scott is correct in that extreme inequality attacks the underpinnings of democracy.

===

“Inequality undermines democracy.”

–

George Packer, Council on Foreign Relations

===

Extreme inequality tests not only democracy but people. It tests character and integrity and honor and … well … good versus evil. And while I will write several pages more on this topic suffice it to say, maybe I am naïve, but I have faith in people and faith in character and faith in what good resides in people.

And I have faith that hope, even a glimmer of it, shows people a path to not only getting a better life but also being better IN life.

All that said.

Everyone who reads my sometimes vapid thinking knows I abhor what Trump espouses and, yet, as an attitude & behavior guy; I think a lot about what he is tapping into.

When people’s hope gets fucked with they get angry.

And that is really where I believe some leader’s solution <not Trump’s> resides and what the talking heads on TV keep missing.

They all discuss anti-establishment. In the marketing world that is like discussing features or creating demand by highlighting only the problem. It creates demand but doesn’t make the sale. Everyone knows what is most effective is benefits and solutions.

I wouldn’t invest one iota of energy debating people like Trump. In my world they are simply building demand. And I love demand because I offer solutions & benefits. I would happily step in right behind the ‘demand builders’ and say “here is my benefit through solutions.”

But at the root of this demand is extreme inequality. And it is tearing us apart in discussion as politicians continuously avoid it <mostly because it is extremely difficult to really discuss>.

Sanders is partially successful because he is focused on features <not real solutions>. He is simply offering pain killers to mask the larger pain for something that needs surgery. In addition, he falsely plays on suggested evils of capitalism itself <not the people>. I don’t begrudge him this avenue but I would point out that pointing fingers at people when in reality you desire systemic solutions is not a productive path toward the solution you truly desire <for example, I don’t want to break up big banks … that’s just silly … what I want is for banks to be run properly.

I have no interest in breaking apart an effective institution which is simply not being run properly … that’s like deciding to put a Formula One car on a scrap heap because I have a crappy driver>.

And, yet, here is the bottom line … if you provide solutions to extreme inequality, real long term systemic solutions and not short term band aid solutions <like higher taxes on the uber wealthy> you will inevitably empower capitalism to benefit all, balance <not equalize> the wealth to not wealth spectrum and reinvigorate hope among people. In other words … show a future worth embracing.

—

A report from the Institute for Policy Studies analyzed the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans and found that “the wealthiest 100 households now own about as much wealth as the entire African American population in the United States”. That means that 100 families – most of whom are white – have as much wealth as the 41,000,000 black folks walking around the country (and the million or so locked up) combined.

Similarly, the report also stated that “the wealthiest 186 members of the Forbes 400 own as much wealth as the entire Latino population” of the nation. Here again, the breakdown in actual humans is broke down: 186 overwhelmingly white folks have more money than that an astounding 55,000,000 Latino people.

Extreme inequality provokes a generalized anger that finds targets where it can — immigrants, foreign countries, American elites, government in all forms — and it rewards demagogues while discrediting reformers.

—

Extreme inequality saps the will to conceive of ambitious solutions to large collective problems mostly because the problems themselves no longer seem in the best interest of everyone … but just some.

Extreme inequality undermines democracy.

Look.

In general, extreme inequality or not, few gain true wealth.

And that is actually okay.

And, in fact, at most times people are okay with that because they like some haves and some have nots to be able to identify an objective <tied to hope>.

Our hope gets threatened by extreme economic inequality because of the impact that wealth concentration can have on government actions and political representation <>.

When wealth owns institutional policymaking, the rules bend to favor the rich, often to the detriment of everyone else.

That is where ‘fair’ gets challenged … things begin to look ‘rigged.’

Regardless.

The extremely rich and extremely poor aspect that we are currently facing should not happen, but societies <and pretty much anything that falls in natural order> will always have some rich and some poor and it is difficult to envision a healthy society without something higher and something lower.

Psychologically, or attitudinally, it permits people to simultaneously glorify <and idolize> the wealthy and empathize with the poor and rally for them.

It is only when the extremes become, well, too extreme that the psychology falls apart.

Extreme inequality hardens society into a class system, imprisoning people in the circumstances of their birth <that is NOT the American dream>.

Extreme inequality divides us from one another in schools, in neighborhoods, at work, in the healthcare system, in what we eat, in the condition of our bodies, in what we think and in our children’s futures.

Extreme inequality corrodes trust among people as it appears like some have rigged the system <for the befit f “I” rather than “we”>.

=====

“The most dangerous moments are not when people are their poorest but rather when their expectations of significant improvement are raised … and end in frustration.”

–

de Tocqueville

====

Extreme inequality screws with our hope.

There is nothing inherently wrong with income inequality and when there is a fair & balanced dispersion of wealth everyday Hope is healthy. Hope starts getting attacked when the inequalities become so extreme as the rich & the poor become entrenched and there is an overall lack of opportunity for economic mobility <or social mobility>.

There are two aspects in which solutions should focus on with regard to solving this extreme inequality:

1. Social mobility:

Some people confuse this with ‘fairness.’ Fairness implies giving something to someone. Society, at its core, isn’t based on giving … it is based on earning.

Earn respect, earn trust, earn relationships and, yes, earn money.

Therefore social mobility is the idea that if you work hard, play by the rules and do it all with purpose that you have the ability to move up from where you are.

A failed social mobility system is one in which you do those three things and either you don’t move at all or, worse, fall backwards.

The main pervasive foundational belief is not actually about being fair but rather if you work hard you will be successful.

That one is a humdinger and while it is, in general, a pervasive American attitude we need to be very careful of for a variety of reasons.

Because it is not true that within a capitalism system it will automatically provide wealth to hard-working individuals.

Yet.

Within a capitalist society people unconsciously form a wealth hope based on this attitude. Therefore it creates a sense that if it is not realized they typically blame themselves … and not the system. But, let’s be clear, a capitalistic society is not inherently fair. The reality is that under capitalism the probability of success, regardless how much you may have worked, is fairly similar to lottery odds. Wealth, with rare exceptions, is not created by hard work, but is a result of merciless ambition and having initial wealth.

It is a myth that success is the result of hard work. Reality is instead wealth typically stays within the wealthy … with enough expectations to give hope to the ‘less wealthy.’

In addition, traditionally, reality is also that “better than where you are today” IS a result of hard work.

I am not demeaning capitalism, for it generally creates better, less expensive things, but it is just not true that capitalism creates wealth and prosperity for all <it just creates a better overall quality of Life>.

In today’s world, mobility upwards from the poorest 20% of people, or down from the richest 20% of people, is increasingly limited. We need to slightly loosen the shackles of where you are so that there is some movement available to get to where you would rather be.

2. Healthy happy middle class.

Despite what trickle down economics tried to convince everyone a healthy economy has <not the wealthy down>. Some of the money gets dropped down to those in the lower incomes section and some gets spun upwards into the upper income areas as a reward to those who helped foster the robust middle class.

What I described makes everyone in the middle class happy because not only are they being productive and making money they recognize they have a it a little better than some and want to help those have what they have if they want to work for it. And they don’t mind giving reward to those above because it reminds them they have something more they can aim for.

Anyway.

A lopsided economy leaves a ‘hollowed out wealth’ middle class without enough money to buy what they think they deserve, entrenches the poor and enriches those to the top … all of which saps the strength of the country’s democracy.

Inequality is always challenging to discuss mostly because as soon as it is brought up everyone wants to shout “socialism” or “communism” or “redistribution.”

I wish we simply focused on ‘balanced inequality’ and balanced wealth.

Balanced wealth.

Probably the most misunderstood and misdiscussed topic with regard to capitalism and a healthy economy. A balanced wealth society far too often gets discussed as ‘inequality’ which then suggests we should be seeking wealth equality <which we do not>.

A healthy capitalist society has income tiers in which some have less and some have more. But the less and the more, the have nots and the haves, need to have a balanced relationship. And the balance reaches into all aspects of society not just money <which makes this topic even more complex>.

Inequality has always existed and it is part of the accepted American culture.

But it was a “balanced inequality.”

It was a balanced wealth, fair dispersion, societal structure.
We need leaders & solutions which do not penalize some groups and reward others … we need to seek the common interest in creating an economic dynamic which works for all. This means, as I wrote in Trickle Down Inequality, insuring as many people as possible begin the race on equal footing and equipping the rising labor force with the skills to reach the middle class <not just jobs>.

The country is changing but I would argue the changes will not endanger the values which make us who and what we are <and potential leaders who invest energy espousing decline of values should seek other messages>. We need to revise our path … not retreat down our path … to refresh values & traditions & moral fortitude in a new reshaped America. As always, the strongest future is always a combination of the past and the future.

The success of the future does not reside in blaming but rather economic solutions. Solutions in which there is rewarding work for those with the right skills and a fair chance of social advancement. Hope, diminished anger, and the squashing of demagogues depends solely upon the shoulders of what type of jobs we create. Because while I could, and have, bring up the term ‘living wages’ I would suggest that living standards are not just about paying the everyday bills but rather the cost of ‘attaining better.’

I don’t believe everyday schmucks like me will lose hope so much that … well … we will end up grasping any version of hope anyone can try to sell us.

When I wrote my Unicorns and Rainbows post in April 2013 it was it was because I feared that people were losing hope and being depressed. So depressed they had just given up hope and dreaming. I believed the issue then was “tough times and people under daily stress just to keep head above water.”

I felt like people just had no time for hope.

But people haven’t given up on hope and dreams … they are angry because they believe someone, or someones, are screwing with their hope and dreams.

It could be culture in general, economic climate, decaying social moral morays, politicians <or government in general>… doesn’t matter … pick your target … people are angry at something.

What they should most be angry about is the fact no one is offering viable solutions … not simple ones or simple platitudes … but rather the smart difficult ones. I have lots of time for Hope. And I believe 99.9% of the people have more than enough time for Hope, or will MAKE the time for hope, but I don’t need a demagogue selling me false hope with empty promises I need real solutions.

Hope is one of the most infragile things we own.

It is also one of our most cherished possessions.

Extreme inequality fucks with our hope.

The leader who can clearly offer solutions to which we can attach our hope to, that we can tangibly attach our hope to, is the one who will win <as we win>.

And I am confident it will neither be a demagogue or an anti-christ who will answer the call of our Hope.

note:

I actually have a business post coming up which will offer a way a leader could actually do something which would reunite people across the divides which seem rampant today

Related Posts

1 Comment

Scott Skibell
January 24, 2016 at 10:49 am

Thanks for the shout-out and a good read.

Hope drives the vote. Well, if this election year is any indication.

On one hand, you have the leading Republican candidate promising to make America great again. Of course this is much to the demise of the Latinos, Asians, and arguably some woman. It seems his constituency has lost their hope due to economic opportunities in a global economy and they’re lashing out for their diluted political clout.

On the other hand, a leading Democratic candidate is a self-avowed Socialist. He’s appealing to a younger constituency angry over college expenditures, job opportunities, and rising healthcare, housing, and retirement contributions. Their future economic well being is at risk and they too are losing hope.

While it won’t be this election cycle, at some point, someone will galvanize the anger both sides feel and point it to the wealthy. As Nick Hanauer wrote in his piece, The Pitchforks are Coming for Us Plutocrats, there will be a tipping point.

If just 6 Walmart heirs (and the largest US employer) have a greater net worth than 42% of the U.S. population, what happens when enough of their 2 million+ employees (let alone their shoppers) turn out at the polls?

It is un-American to lose hope and fall into despair. However, no amount of political spin or voter suppression will be able to combat the tide of inequality. After all, we’re still a democracy.